by
Isabelle
Ouvrard/SEPA.Media
/Getty
Images)
With
fewer
than
100
days
until
kickoff
of
the
2026
FIFA
World
Cup,
a
small
New
England
town
has
exposed
a
legal
vulnerability
that
tournament
organizers
across
North
America
should
be
paying
very
close
attention
to.
Foxborough,
Massachusetts,
population
roughly
19,000,
is
threatening
to
deny
the
entertainment
license
required
to
host
World
Cup
matches
at
the
stadium
that
will
temporarily
be
known
as
“Boston
Stadium.”
The
issue
is
not
whether
the
town
wants
the
tournament.
By
most
accounts,
it
does.
The
issue
is
who
pays
for
security.
Local
officials
say
they
need
approximately
$7.8
million
to
cover
policing,
fire
protection,
equipment,
and
other
public
safety
obligations
during
the
tournament.
That
money
was
expected
to
come
from
federal
funding
approved
last
year
as
part
of
a
broader
security
package
tied
to
the
World
Cup
and
other
national
events.
But
the
funding
has
not
arrived.
The
delay
has
left
Foxborough
officials
asking
a
very
simple
question:
If
the
money
does
not
come
through,
who
is
legally
responsible
for
covering
the
cost?
The
answer,
at
the
moment,
appears
to
be
unclear.
And
that
is
precisely
the
problem.
The
Hidden
Complexity
of
World
Cup
Hosting
Unlike
many
international
sporting
events,
the
World
Cup
in
the
United
States
is
not
managed
through
a
single
contractual
structure
that
clearly
assigns
operational
responsibility
to
one
party.
Instead,
hosting
responsibilities
are
distributed
across
a
complicated
network
that
includes
FIFA,
local
organizing
committees,
stadium
operators,
municipal
governments,
state
authorities,
and
federal
agencies.
Each
entity
plays
a
role.
Each
assumes
certain
obligations.
But
those
obligations
are
often
defined
through
overlapping
agreements
rather
than
a
single
comprehensive
framework.
When
everything
works
as
intended,
the
system
functions.
When
funding
or
timelines
break
down,
however,
the
gaps
become
visible.
Foxborough’s
dispute
illustrates
exactly
what
those
gaps
can
look
like
in
practice.
Local
public
safety
officials
cannot
wait
until
the
final
weeks
before
a
global
sporting
event
to
determine
whether
they
have
the
personnel,
equipment,
and
infrastructure
necessary
to
protect
hundreds
of
thousands
of
visitors.
Security
planning
for
events
of
this
magnitude
begins
years
in
advance.
Police
chiefs
and
fire
departments
do
not
operate
on
theoretical
funding
commitments.
They
operate
on
budgets.
Without
financial
certainty,
municipalities
face
a
serious
legal
and
fiscal
dilemma.
Municipal
Licensing
Is
a
Powerful
Legal
Tool
What
makes
the
Foxborough
situation
particularly
significant
is
the
leverage
that
local
governments
possess
in
these
circumstances.
Municipalities
control
the
permits
and
licenses
required
for
large
public
gatherings.
Those
approvals
cover
emergency
services
plans,
safety
protocols,
crowd
management,
and
a
wide
range
of
operational
requirements.
Without
those
licenses,
events
cannot
legally
proceed.
This
means
a
local
government
can
effectively
stop
a
global
sporting
event
simply
by
refusing
to
approve
the
necessary
permits.
Foxborough
officials
have
emphasized
that
they
do
not
want
to
block
the
tournament.
But
they
have
also
made
clear
that
they
cannot
responsibly
approve
the
event
without
clear
financial
guarantees.
From
a
legal
perspective,
that
position
is
entirely
defensible.
Municipal
leaders
have
fiduciary
and
statutory
obligations
to
protect
local
taxpayers
and
ensure
that
public
safety
agencies
are
adequately
resourced.
Hosting
matches
without
guaranteed
reimbursement
for
millions
in
security
costs
could
expose
the
town
to
significant
financial
liability.
That
risk
is
not
hypothetical.
The
Liability
Question
No
One
Wants
to
Discuss
Security
funding
disputes
are
not
merely
budgeting
issues.
They
are
also
liability
issues.
If
a
municipality
approves
an
event
without
adequate
staffing
or
equipment
because
funding
commitments
failed
to
materialize,
the
legal
exposure
could
be
enormous
should
something
go
wrong.
Large-scale
sporting
events
carry
inherent
risks.
Crowd
control
failures,
emergency
response
delays,
infrastructure
breakdowns,
or
security
breaches
can
quickly
generate
litigation
involving
multiple
layers
of
responsibility.
In
those
situations,
plaintiffs’
attorneys
do
not
focus
on
organizational
charts.
They
follow
the
money.
Questions
quickly
arise
about
who
approved
the
event,
who
controlled
the
safety
plan,
who
assumed
responsibility
for
emergency
services,
and
whether
adequate
resources
were
in
place.
If
those
answers
point
back
to
a
municipality
that
authorized
the
event
despite
unresolved
funding
gaps,
the
legal
consequences
could
be
severe.
That
reality
explains
why
local
officials
in
Foxborough
are
drawing
a
line
now
rather
than
hoping
the
funding
dispute
resolves
itself
later.
Why
Other
Host
Cities
Should
Pay
Attention
Foxborough’s
dispute
is
not
simply
a
local
disagreement.
It
is
a
preview
of
a
broader
structural
issue.
The
2026
World
Cup
will
be
played
across
sixteen
host
cities
in
the
United
States,
Canada,
and
Mexico.
Each
of
those
jurisdictions
relies
on
its
own
network
of
public
safety
agencies,
permitting
processes,
and
funding
mechanisms.
If
federal
funding
delays
continue
—
or
if
reimbursement
structures
remain
uncertain
—
other
municipalities
could
find
themselves
confronting
the
same
question
Foxborough
now
faces.
Do
they
assume
the
financial
risk
of
hosting
one
of
the
largest
sporting
events
in
the
world?
Or
do
they
use
their
licensing
authority
to
demand
financial
certainty
before
approving
the
event?
Neither
option
is
attractive.
But
local
governments
ultimately
answer
to
their
residents,
not
to
FIFA.
A
Warning
Before
the
Tournament
Begins
It
is
highly
likely
that
Foxborough
will
ultimately
approve
the
license
required
to
host
World
Cup
matches.
The
economic
and
reputational
stakes
are
simply
too
large
for
all
parties
involved
to
allow
the
event
to
collapse
over
a
funding
dispute.
But
the
fact
that
the
dispute
exists
at
all
should
be
viewed
as
a
warning.
Major
international
sporting
events
depend
not
only
on
stadiums
and
television
contracts
but
on
clear
legal
structures
that
define
responsibility
for
security,
liability,
and
public
safety.
If
those
structures
break
down
—
even
temporarily
—
the
consequences
can
ripple
far
beyond
a
single
host
city.
The
World
Cup
is
supposed
to
be
the
world’s
game.
But
when
it
comes
to
public
safety,
local
governments
hold
the
whistle.
And
if
the
legal
and
financial
questions
are
not
resolved
in
time,
they
also
have
the
power
to
stop
play
before
it
ever
begins.
Michael
J.
Epstein,
a
Harvard
Law
School
graduate,
is
a
trial
lawyer
and
managing
partner
of The
Epstein
Law
Firm,
P.A., a
law
firm
based
in
New
Jersey.